memory_alphafandomcom-20200223-history
Talk:Unnamed Humans (distant past)
Rationale for great great granddaddy McCoy refers to him as "One of my great great granddaddies, way back". --LauraCC (talk) 22:17, January 20, 2016 (UTC) And the term isn't necessarily limited to someone four generations back. Could be longer. --LauraCC (talk) 22:22, January 20, 2016 (UTC) Isn't my note that McCoy's relative was not necessarily from the McCoy side of the family valid? It keeps someone from suggesting that he should be listed under "McCoy (ancestor)", for instance. --LauraCC (talk) 15:35, January 22, 2016 (UTC) :Since such a suggestion would have to be made on this very talk page, I think that your comment just there will serve as well as any background note ;) -- Capricorn (talk) 22:36, January 22, 2016 (UTC) Other unknown era peoples Are there any other races whose members are mentioned in an unknown time? --LauraCC (talk) 22:38, January 22, 2016 (UTC) :Funny you should ask, because I've been thinking about that too. I've come upon similar problems to that lead you to create this page a few times before, but ended up following our page Distant past and use that term instead. Hence Unnamed Vulcans (unknown era), Unnamed humanoids (unknown era) and Unnamed non-humanoids (unknown era). We should probably use uniform terminology in all four articles, but I can see advantages for both terms. "Unknown era" may be more technically correct for some references, but the neat thing about the distant past article was that it could include things where a century was known, but it would be tedious creating numerous century articles with just one reference. That might come into play if you want to categorize things seen in the guardian of forever and time stream. -- Capricorn (talk) 23:01, January 22, 2016 (UTC) With the McCoy example, you know that his relative probably wasn't from 300 BC, but since it's never stated, to guess at 19th or 20th when you're not sure...best to leave it ambiguous. If the era isn't said, unknown era. --LauraCC (talk) 19:03, January 23, 2016 (UTC) As you know, that can change as MA users become more observant. The "Unnamed humanoids (Distant past)" page you speak of is a case in point of one entry (though 3 images). --LauraCC (talk) 20:54, February 2, 2016 (UTC) Question regarding Lavelle's grandfather Is my bg note wandering into speculation territory, or reasonable? If he doesn't belong here, I'm tempted to move the man to "Unnamed Canadians". --LauraCC (talk) 19:31, May 13, 2016 (UTC) :Too much speculation, and no. That page doesn't need to exist. -- sulfur (talk) 23:53, May 13, 2016 (UTC) It's my justification for placing the character there, in case anyone questions it. --LauraCC (talk) 18:33, May 16, 2016 (UTC) Removed that "My grandfather ''was from Canada''", indicating he was likely dead by 2370. Given the longer lifespan enjoyed by many Humans by that point in time, it is unknown whether he lived into the 23rd century or not.}} Preserving here for anyone who wants to read it. --LauraCC (talk) 17:11, June 9, 2016 (UTC) And that should have been "2'4'''th century". --LauraCC (talk) 17:40, October 8, 2016 (UTC) Unnamed Humans (distant past) vs Unnamed Humans (unknown era) With the creation of this page we now have two pages, Unnamed Humans (distant past) and Unnamed Humans (unknown era), that are very similar and in fact have significant overlap as there's Humans that are both clearly ancient, and from an unknown era. These pages only really need to exist because we've taken to splitting Humans by whether they're 21st, 22nd, 23rd, 24th century and there's some need for an option "other". I think there's no good reason to split up these others, it only happened as a result of the disambiguation terms we've thought up. There ought to be a better solution. (it's not an unique situation either, see Unnamed non-humanoids (unknown era) vs "Unnamed non-humanoids (distant past)") -- Capricorn (talk) 08:31, March 26, 2017 (UTC) :Like what we did with Unnamed individuals (unknown era), yes. I put up the split tag. --LauraCC (talk) 19:18, October 12, 2017 (UTC) :: Or just be patient and someone who has been actively working on this stuff will get to it. --Alan del Beccio (talk) 19:23, October 12, 2017 (UTC) :I am. :) --LauraCC (talk) 19:25, October 12, 2017 (UTC) :: Actually now, unknown era and distant past makes sense in as far as there are several listed that have era's clearly known, whereas those that have unknown era's, like great grandparents and so forth could reasonably be narrowed down to the 23d or 22d century (which would qualify as the "unknown") and look really odd alongside those that are known (but collected here as "unknown"), just because they predate the 19th century limit we placed as an endpoint. --Alan (talk) 15:59, September 28, 2018 (UTC) :::Aren't we limiting these to the centuries shown on screen, and that's why we don't have Humans before the 19th. If we want to treat these pages as a catch all for "other eras", why not just ditch the disambiguation and move these to Unnamed Humans? It's nothing but a disambiguation right now. We don't need ''three pages when one would do. We could also just "decided" that the medium age people have kids is 25, like the US government does, for determining where grandparents go and leave a note about our reasoning. It's stupid to say we don't know when they lived when we clearly have a reasonable range. - 20:26, September 28, 2018 (UTC) :: I essentially agree, but I'm just trying to play nice what with how things have quietly fallen into place. As an aside, I think 30yrs is the average turnover to define a generation, but using that basis, yeah, that would simplify a lot. As for why Unnamed Humans alone isn't used...I seem to recall someone thought it was a better idea not to do it that way. At this moment, I disagree with that idea. But like I said, I'm just trying to play nice. I have no problem going along with what you just suggested. --Alan (talk) 20:37, September 28, 2018 (UTC)